Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.

I like option three... both! Predicting quasars and building the universe from a theoretical model is more science, the ethical man and Beyond Space and Time is moving towards philosophy. It's all a bit grey really...

The very separation of natural philosophy into "science" and "philosophy" as specializations is why we have such confusion in both fields. one exception, Gille Deleuze, the co–author of "What is Philosophy" who Jorjani discusses with Mishlove in the above video, continues to uphold the distinctions between science, philosophy and art, but more as expressions of the same creative activity in different domains that can inform each other. This is different than the attitude brainwashed into everyone in the current educational system, where science deals with facts and everything else is mere speculation.
The biggest roadblock I have in discussing alternative science with educated people is the demand that the alternative system prove itself with new facts. But the facts that support alternative viewpoints are seldom dramatic enough for people to admit the need for such radical changes in their theoretical assumptions. The appeal must be made on philosophical grounds, as Feyerabend did, that new theories, even sometimes seemingly counterfactual ones, have been as much the driver of scientific progress as experiment, if not more. But what we need now is not another fancy new theory, but new thinking that can make sense of the mountains of data we already have no good explanation for. People are hungry for a coherent picture of the world. The Electric Universe community is continuing to grow in popularity and support because of this. They market themselves as being more common sensical, simple and coherent than the mainstream but they lack the philosophical depth and conceptual foundations of the RS and other similar developments. The value of the deeper analysis must be made clear if there is going to be a broader investment in the ideas here, that could lead to more experiments, technology and the dramatic breakthroughs needed to create a revolutionary alternative knowledge culture.

In other words, the philosophy may well become science as we presently define it .

I am not sure I understand you. Current science is still philosophy; it is just done mostly, as Jorjani suggests in the above video, by a branch of philosophers that have tried to silence their opposition by cloaking their theories in a veil of authoritative empiricism. My point is that when alternative thinkers try to debate them they use the same language and often fail for that reason. Just look at the way EU people are handling critical attention from the mainstream. High priest of scientific dogma Michael Shermer went to one of the conferences and to him and other critics, it all is just a philosophical cult. People are attracted to EU, he thinks, just because they like it, not because it is true or offers anything beyond speculative ideas. Alternative science advocates need to counter this dismissal of philosophy with a deeper critique of the place of ideas in science so arrogantly promoted by the high priests like Shermer and DeGrasse Tyson.

Don't get me wrong, debate over facts is good too, but it is the whole epistemology of mainstream physics that is really at issue and without rethinking that, no slightly more holistic version like EU is going to change the situation. Mainstream physics has a strategy for dealing with errors and inconsistencies which Larson insightfully attacked as a whole. Hacking away at niche issues that boil down more to philosophical differences as the EU does is of course going to seem like a merely emotional preference for classical and commonsensical concepts. The RS on the other hand is properly philosophical and I am enjoying linking it up with other theories and similar trends in other fields that can give it the weight of a whole worldview and movement. RS just doesn't have the immediate appeal that EU does, retaining as they do all the usual base assumptions and reifications that feel familiar to people. But the future I think will vindicate Goethe and the holistic thinkers as specialization is increasingly being absorbed into the systems science and topological thinking that cannot help but emerge as technology converges and demands general principles and interdisciplinary coherence. "Philosophy" lost its esteem for a while, while "Theory" reigned in all its incoherent forms, but the demand for wise theory is growing and philosophers, true lovers of wisdom, may indeed rise again.